operation 24/7. there are 3 service illuminates. you'll hear primarily about the project funded positions and what's been proposed for your care and caution consideration is is 2 percent increase in the office possession and operating positions. the general manager said no to almost every new position proposed and those were the exceptions so there's very few. in your packets each enterprise has 5 different tabs. between tab 3 the hundreds of positions that were either transferred or resigned so those are the few we couldn't figure out a way to shift around the way of authorization so thank

you for considering those >> todd i want to point out that definitely was not popular but when we talk about project funded positions that's bans project a fund from a project so that is something that with, do through a consultant or have city staff and i try to balance so we'll have some of the infrastructure mainly will address the capital need and the positions noted to deliver the capital projects operating with something that was really focused on so out of the solutions and operation we've asked 0 for a few positions we're able to reline and reduce the areas to prioritize other

areas i wanted to point that out. >> if you can add it that. the general manager and i have been in conversations about that. and it's a difficult issue given that we are not doing the budget in a way that gets us down into the weeds plus what's being asked for. god forbid we shouldn't be doing that we don't have the expertise to make the appropriate judgements at that level but we need to ensured against the tendency for organizations to grow over time. someone asked for something to be done and we need the positions to do the work. the part that didn't happen we don't have to do anywhere are

the things we can do smarter and better ray and those things don't come in the as a way. so the question is how do you responsibly exercise the judgment and that's for the general manager to do. we have a role in that as well. and i think we need to know, you know, for those items that come up we need to get them scrutinized. there needs to be a good presumption you know where there were many needs i need to find old needs to go away. the presumption is an important presumption that allows staff and management to make the tough decisions to get there were they

feel they can't make the trades we need to consider those positions carefully. i've talked to harland about ways in which we can try to go after some of the savings in a way that's not a detailed line byline item but it calls for the organization to see were there were efficiencies and i don't know if that comes through with the management or their attention but that's a decision i look forward to continuing where the general manager >> i do have a question. i see on the first slide i see in fiscal 2015 - 2016 >> those summaries are for the drought year the numbers will be

projected in 8 upwards if we have a drought. this is your average rainfall here >> but you still anticipate more purchases of electrical. >> yes. based on the higher rates filed by pg&e with the california puc and as well as their filed rates for transition and discussion that is what their asking for . >> so if i may quickly the project funded positions are summarized on your next slide. as the general manager said this is from the capital project you asked us to do the seismic upgrades and the operating budget changes are very, very if you there's 6 out of a subtotal

of 24 hundred positions. i'll be able to walk you through those at the close. each of of the aj ms have has 10 minutes of appreciation and they're trying to have very few proposed increases and doing thing more proficiently i'm going to turn it over to steve and we'll go through each of those and i'll close with the capital 10 year review and what the impact is on all the rates. thank you >> did anybody notice the title he slide yet. i forget to change the title

years it was pointed out to me. i'm steve the assistant general manager for the water and i imagine to go through the presentation we're talking about not only the hetch hetchy but the other. the organization chart ass as i showed last time. this is the delivery of the water to the 2.6 million people. we have priorities within the water it's summarized in the next slide. first on the roiblt does the shut down is going forward so that will be an ongoing activity for the next few years but it's on the downhill side now.

transitioning to the post organization that is 13wr5g9 the projects into the system which is one challenge but staffing the modifications over time and a trend toward electronic electricians. we need to 13wr5rg9 our other systems. we've talked in previous fiscal years about the distribution main replacement in the city and this is the year we've budgeted for the 15 miles per year so the infrastructure budget to help make sure we can carry out that project efficiently. we've implementing a new strategy one of the big things we're working with the the rest of the city family on the

emergency response bond measure coming up in the next few months that will have money for the auctioningy water supply but we've looked at our portable distribution system and as we're looking those we're finding opportunity to help with the fire protection in san francisco. on the supply side this is looking forward. there's no mention of the drought here because those are the next two fiscal years. we may have to continue this but this is focused on the other things we have to do. even though we deal with the drought now we have to continue to looking long-term with the customers and maintaining our supply and managing for drought

and addressing future programs. we'll talk about the road map to get to 90 thirty. our diverse water supply like non-port alable waters. on the operations front we're continuing to fold this into the system and improving our management system after all and implementing the watersheds in the environmental program and increasing - making sure your staff can do their jobs. the operating budget basically in terms of dollars that's debt service and resources it's paying the mortgage and it's the changes in water. on the position side todd noted there's basically 30 new possessions over the 3 years

this shows 4 their transferred from infrastructure and the entrepreneurs it will come into the water infrastructure. this is about 15 or 16 positions within the water enterprise from one position of one job to another. we actually have dug in deep and found where we can shift position from old jobs to new jobs. the new positions are primarily associated with the implements of the ground water program as well as the main replacement program. on the capital side we had a big exchanging challenge with this budget in terms of dealing with the cost increases with the water system improvement program. this capital budget is for 5

projects the dam and alameda creek and the transition upgrade. those needs to be funded out of the water capital program to get those to completion plus $36 million for two local projects on the west side of those need to be funded because the budget has on quoted so we're dealing with that in this budget. we did that by the proposed referral and the project that has about i believe about 8 and a half million dollars in the 10 years for the development of the project and the construction after the 10 year timeline of the project and the yard improvements and the east side improvement water. this helps with the sewer system improvement projects to make

sure we build that into the sewer program in the right context with each other >> steve a question on the deferral of projects practicing projects and we've not made a decision as to whether that's a project we want to proceed with, however, when he look at the first level of water supply level that's a big chunk of how we get there so something needs to be very high open our priority list why did that make sense to deter it. >> it make sense to have the planning design and environmental dollars are dmrut that budget so the commission could decide to go with the project but the construction would be outside of the 10 year timeframe we want to meet our level of services but in terms

of the actual demand we won't be there for sometime. >> it's true of the city promotions and we're funding those that i. >> the other thing we need to defer recreational dollars to line up with the recreational costs we tried to do that that way and we're keeping the projects would count for the money we're spend on recreational projects that is substantially more. >> one of the things we've agreed to say report on the first set of projects that kooets keeps it on the quarterly basis and provide the bright light for that. this seems inconsistent with that and by the time we come back to our next meeting we'll

take a hard look at that but wre if we can't do it we'll - we need to have money in there for it. but we're going to take a second look at that >> i think what steve is saying is that trying to balance local and recreational water as far as the south is concerned given the fact there's an uncertainty of what the construction will happen we felt comfortable pushing it out but as we put money in the planning for participating in design in two years if he feel this project is x alerted we'll taking a look at

that this was an exercise to balance the plan but it can chiang change every 23 years. >> this project was going to come back to us in the spring; is that right and yeah. sometime this spring there's a meeting of executives from the other are participant and not everybody has the same need so, so based on that and the completion of the work we'll get the commissions direction on that. >> okay. >> mr. richie with